Conference 3, Animals: Summary for August 2000

I am Ancharlie na-Chiangmai, I am working on buffalo breeding research at the Department of Livestock Development, Thailand.

I quite agree with Dr. Chandrasiri [24 July] that artificial insemination (AI) at the small farmer level is not practical especially in swamp buffalo, where the pattern of reproductive physiology is a problem. The difficulty of heat detection and the short period of ovulation probably are the main reasons. Farmers keep few animals (1-5 heads per family) and raise them at a distance from the village, which gives the animal less opportunity to be inseminated at the right time. Synchronisation with hormones in buffalo is not recommended because, from my experience, the animals show cystic ovary and change normal estrous cycle.

For swamp buffalo in the village situation, where the animals are let loose together in the common land during the day, using natural mating probably gives the better result.

Ancharlie na-Chiangmai
Head of Buffalo Research Group,
Department of Livestock Development,
Phya Thai Road, Bangkok 10400 THAILAND
e-mail: bpdld@samart.co.th

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 8:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: RE: Reproduction - swamp buffalo - Thailand

[Thanks to Dr. Tibary for his clear comments about technology transfer, in particular relating to artificial insemination (AI) in the buffalo.

NB: There is now just one week left of this conference - due to finish on 12 August. Many of you have probably been away on holidays and have now returned invigorated and eager (!!), so we would particularly appreciate if participants (235 people are registered) would use these last opportunities to share their views and/or experiences on the appropriateness, significance and application of biotechnology options in the animal sector in developing countries. If there is sufficient activity and interest this week, we will extend the duration of the conference by one extra week..........Moderator]

A few weeks ago [4 July], I wrote about the difficulties involved in the introduction of technologies such as artificial insemination (AI) and embryo transfer in some areas in the world. The management aspect of these technologies is particularly important. The point concerning heat detection and use of synchronization programs raised by Ancharlie [4 August] is very critical, especially in the Buffalo.

I would like to point out just two facts: First, that although natural mating will give good fertility results, the cost of keeping a male with all the accident and health risks is not negligible and that is why AI would be recommended. The second point is that the reason synchronization schemes do not work is because most of the procedures used are "borrowed" from the research conducted on cattle, particularly Bos Taurus. There is scientific evidence that follicular activity in the buffalo is quite different from that of cattle. My recommendation is that any synchronization-AI program in buffalo should be preceded first by detailed studies on the follicular waves in this species which eventually could lead to development of fixed-time AI following a hormonal treatment protocol. Programs such as "Ovulation synchronization" and AI at specific time without heat detection could be developed. However, an economic evaluation (cost-benefit study) will have to be done.

In my opinion, most of the transfer of technology programs lack the on-site research component that will allow a better understanding of the factors involved.

My final point is that if the actors are convinced that there is a gain in such technologies, then with adequate local research funding all these problems can be alleviated. I would cite as an example the tremendous progress that was achieved in recent years in the development of embryo transfer and artificial insemination in camels in the Middle East due to the interest of these countries in these species and adequate funding of research.

Ahmed Tibary D.M.V., MS, Ph.D.
Diplomate, American College of Theriogenologists
Dept. Veterinary Clinical Sciences
College of Veterinary Medicine
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-6610
USA
Phone: 509-335-1963
tibary@vetmed.wsu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 10:01 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: international cooperation in genetic characterisation of livestock

[Thanks to Dr. Hanotte, Kenya, for this well-written contribution about the potential contribution of biotechnology and molecular markers to the study of current livestock biodiversity and of the wild ancestry of today's domestic breeds.......Moderator]

I have read with interest the various comments these latest weeks regarding the use of biotechnology in the developing world. The importance to genetically characterise indigenous livestock was sometimes briefly mentioned (DNA fingerprinting, microsatellite, etc.). I have been working for the last 5 years at the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi being particularly involved in the molecular genetic characterization aspect of the ongoing livestock biodiversity project at ILRI.

In term of livestock biodiversity, the developing world is in a more enviable position than the so-called developed world. It could be potentially a gold mine for the developing world if properly studied and evaluated. Biotechnology and molecular markers in particular can definitively help here. In this context, I would like to emphasize one particular aspect which is now clearly emerging following the use of molecular markers:

Recent molecular results e.g in cattle, sheep and pigs indicate that our current breeds often originate from separate domestication events and/or that several ancestral species have contributed to the current genetic pool of the species. A genetic bottleneck has most likely followed all domestication events. In this context, the identification of the ancestral species contributing to the genetic pool of a species is essential. Countries still hosting population of the wild ancestors are in a unique position. Conservation, valuation and exploitation of this wildlife component should be a top priority for the hosting country (e.g Yak and bactrian camel in China, Asian buffalo population, South American Camelidae etc). Similarly the identification and the conservation of breeds at, or nearby, the center of origins, might often display most the genetic variation. Most of the current livestock breeds of the developing world are a mixture of different genetic influences. Molecular markers are providing us with the tools to unravel these influences. The identification of these ancestral components is the essential background against which an individual country livestock biodiversity can be understood.

To understand at a continental/worldwide level the genetic diversity of a species is clearly a task beyond the capability of a single country. Our experience with African cattle, however, indicates that it can be nevertheless a very realistic task. It took us roughly five years to understand globally what are the genetic backgrounds of the current indigenous African cattle. The keys points were the full collaborations of individual African countries allowing their livestock to be sampled, and the molecular data being produced and analysis in a single research center (which being international has the advantage of not being tied up to a specific country). The results are that, today, Africa and Europe are the only continents where a global understanding of a livestock biodiversity species is becoming available. Individual African countries have now the required backgound to value their own specific genetic resources (which could be done in theory in a relatively cheap way e.g. PhD studenship).

The message is that international cooperation in the genetic characterisation of indigenous livestock is essential if individual countries want to value their own resources. There might otherwise be very little to gain from country-isolated initiatives.

Dr. Olivier Hanotte
Livestock Genomics and Genetics
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
Naivasha Road
Laboratory 7
P.O. Box 30709
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 2 630743 ext: 4708
Fax: +254 2 631499
E-mail: o.hanotte@cgiar.org
Web site: http://www.cgiar.org/ilri/

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 9:26 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Social Development and Biotechnology // 1-week extension of conference

[Thanks to M'Hammed Sedrati, Morocco, who points out that, although biotechnologies could play an important role in the animal sector, they need an environment (educational/infra-structural) that is often lacking in developing countries.

NB: Because the conference has been running at a time that is the holiday period for many participants, we have decided to EXTEND it by one week. Thus, the last day for posting of messages in this conference is FRIDAY 18 AUGUST.........Moderator]

This is from M'Hammed SEDRATI, Veterinarian, former Director of Institut Agronomic et veterinaire Hassan II and presently Director of Institut National de Recherche Halieutique, 2 Rue de Tiznit, Casablanca, Morocco. E-mail sedrati@inrh.org.ma

I have been during this period following with attention most of the contributions to the conference on biotechnologies in the animal agriculture sector. Most of them bring facts and realities of the situation in developing countries. All of us recognize the role that could be played by these new technologies in improving productivity and the quality of animal products for the benefit of breeders and consumers. Maybe the actual result are not corresponding to the level of our hopes to face poverty, hunger and malnutrition of about one billion of human beings, but I am sure that in a near future, scientific research will improve these techniques for better results.

But these technologies need an environment that we don't have in developing countries, I mean : education for all, basic infrastructures (electricity, drinkable water, roads, sanitation...). As we all know the level of illiteracy is about 50 to 70% in the rural areas, less than 10% of farmers in developing countries have a technical training. How is the level of investment in scientific and technical research ? Very, very low. Even when we train people in high-techs, they are drained by the developed world who offers them better salaries and appropriate conditions for jobs or research. Thus we are not competitive, and the general environment to develop and use biotechnologies is not achieved.

I am not pessimistic since I believe that the developing world is more and more aware that social development is the basis to reach a minimum level for accessing to all new technologies. So the role of developed countries is to bring the developing world to a social development level that makes our farmers able to introduce biotechnologies in the management of their herds.

I hope that our moderator will make a synthesis of all the ideas that have been brought to the conference and I hope FAO will use these conclusions and take this opportunity to bring them to decision makers.

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org .The last day for posting messages in this conference is Friday 18 August. For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 10:30 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: international cooperation in genetic characterisation of live stock

[Thanks to Dr. Traore from Mali for his clear comments on the challenges involved in the conservation of local animal breeds and the potential contribution of biotechnology to this area. We have provided an English translation of the original French message (also included), and hope that it accurately captures his views......Moderator]

First of all thanks to the organisers for granting us this small extension [until 18 August]. I read with much interest the contribution of Dr. Hanotte [11 August] concerning the need for international co-operation in the characterisation of our indigenous genetic resources. I agree totally with him about the especially important contribution that biotechnology, in particular molecular markers, can give to this important task and I wish to see an even stronger co-operation being established between centres like ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute) and CIRDES (Centre international de Recherche-Développement sur l'Elevage en Zone subhumide) and other advanced research institutes from the North with our breeding and animal science research institutes.

The area of the management of genetic resources (characterisation, conservation and improvement) figures prominently from now on in our national and regional agricultural research strategic plans, while the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) 2000 meeting which was recently held in Dresden, Germany [see http://www.fao.org/nars/gfar2000/index.htm ...Moderator] consecrated the subject as a privileged area for international co-operation. Characterisation is an important step but is not enough to conserve our local genetic resources. The preservation of these breeds depends on a real appreciation of the identified traits, the traits that are not always in tune with the new demands of the market, such as size, weight, milk production, laying performance etc.

In addition, those who are concerned with the problems of the conservation of local breeds find themselves often faced with the problem of the high appeal of breeds said to be of high performance and their crosses on the breeders. Here, there are some very complex issues which address the entire international community and which call for a sustained co-operation in the field of improvement and conservation of local breeds. Given its mandate, the role of FAO here seems to be particularly important.

Dr Adama TRAORE
Docteur vétérinaire, Spécialiste de reproduction animale (PhD)
Président du Comité National de la Recherche Agronomique (CNRA)
Président du Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles (CORAF)
Bamako (Mali), BP: E1911 , tel/fax : (223) 22 71 65
e-mail : atraore@spider.toolnet.org

Tout d'abord merci aux organisateurs pour nous avoir accordé cette petite prolongation. J'ai lu avec beaucoup d'intérêts la contribution du Dr Hanotte relative à la nécessité d'une coopération internationale dans la caractérisation de nos ressources génétiques indigènes. Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec lui sur la contribution particulièrement importante que peut apporter aujourd'hui la biotechnologie, en particulier les marqueurs moléculaires, à cette importante mission et je souhaite voir une coopération encore plus importante s'instaurer entre des centres comme l'ILRI, le CIRDES et d'autres institutions de recherche avancées du Nord avec nos institutions d'élevage et de recherche zootechnique. Le domaine de la gestion des ressources génétiques (caractérisation, conservation et amélioration) figure désormais en bonne place dans nos plans stratégiques nationaux et régionaux de recherche agricole, et le forum mondial de la recherche agricole qui s'est récemment tenu à Dresde en Allemagne a consacré le sujet comme domaine privilégié de coopération internationale. La caractérisation est une étape importante mais pas suffisante pour conserver nos ressources génétiques locales; la sauvegarde de ces races passe par une valorisation réelle des caractères identifiés, des caractères qui ne sont pas toujours en rapport avec les nouvelles exigences du marché (gabarit, poids, production laitière, performance de ponte etc..). Aussi, ceux qui sont concernés par les problèmes de conservation de races locales se trouvent souvent confrontés au problème de l'attrait excessif exercé sur les éleveurs des races dites de haute performance et les produits croisés. Il y'a ici des aspects très complexes qui interpellent la communauté internationale toute entière et appelle à une coopération soutenue en matière d'amélioration et de conservation des races locales; eu égard à son mandat, le rôle de la FAO apparaît ici particulièrement important.

[The last day for posting messages in this conference is Friday 18 August. To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 5:48 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: international cooperation in genetic characterisation of livestock

My name is Bess Tiesnamurti, animal breeder at the Indonesian Research Institute for Animal Production, located in Bogor, West Java. I am doing research mainly for sheep and goats and just lately starting work in the area of moleculer biology. I would like to comment on posting made by Drs. Hanotte [11 August] and Traore [16 August].

It is of my great interest to see real international collaboration on genetic characterization of indigenous livestock. DAD-IS/FAO has great and major contribution on collecting information on local indigenous livestock and we have to continue with the real work ("in the fields, to see what is left"). Why do I say that ? We cannot wait any longer - things have to be done "now". If any international collaboration is going to be started, I would like appreciate any organizer to include "our work" to be considered as a member.

For your information, the Indonesian goverment put a small contribution to support research/work on indigenous livestock that is now considered to be at risk (for example: Gembrong goats of Bali, now only 20 heads left, see the Red Book for Livestock, 1996). We purchased 8 does and 2 buck early this year and started to multiply the numbers. It is very expensive to maintain those facilities, however we have to do it, otherwise we lose them all. We are doing ex-situ conservation for other type of goat, chicken and duck.

Regarding the molecular markers to be used for genetic diversity studies, my experience tells me that it is a powerful tool and we have the genetic laboratory that can support that kind of work.

Consideration should be taken to keeping the programme going on a limited budget, therefore I strongly urge to start the international collaboration. What I explain above are my experiences, and I feel we are on the same feeling of how important action shall be taken. I hope my short contribution can lead us that we have to move on. Thank you.

Bess Tiesnamurti
Research Institute for Animal Production
Jalan Raya Pajajarn, Bogor 16151, Indonesia
Phone :62-251-328384 ext 111
Email:pangbu@indo.net.id

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 9:43 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: international cooperation in genetic characterisation of livestock

My name is Kui Li, from the Lab. of Molecular Biology and Animal Breeding, School of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, P. R. China.

I agree with Drs. Olivier Hanotte [11 August], Adama Traore [16 August] and Bess Tiesnamurti's [16 August] comments about the importance of international cooperation of domestic animal genetic resources. Here, I just would like to present my opinions on how to conduct a successful international cooperation.

The international cooperation can be carried out very well and the comparable results can be obtained by organizing a large project, but it perhaps will be impossible because of the difficulties to find the large amounts of funds. Most likely, the international cooperation will be carried out on the basis of many small grants. In order to conduct this kind of international cooperation successfully, first of all, the standard methods should be defined because one of the major problems in genetic diversity evaluation of domestic animals is that different markers and even different statistical methods result in totally different results.Therefore, the same markers, the same methods for the sample collection, marker detection and data analysis should be recommended and used in all of the related studies. The MoDAD guidelines of FAO [MoDAD refers to Measurement of Domestic Animal Diversity - see DAD-IS http://www.fao.org/dad-is/ .....Moderator] are very important, but more guidelines should be recommended, such as the guidelines for SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) detection and analysis, the guidelines for the species still not included in the MoDAD guidelines.

Moreover, the basic data on production characters, population sizes and the history of breeds are also very important for the genetic characterization, thus the standard methods for collecting these data should be also defined.

Our group in China has been engaged in the genetic characterization of Chinese indigenous domestic animals for more than 6 years, some brief reports about our research results have been published in international journals already. We wish to join any kinds of international cooperation on genetic characterization of domestic animal genetic resources.

Kui Li, Ph.D.
Lab. of Molecular Biology and Animal Breeding
School of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary medicine
Huazhong(Central China) Agricultural University
Wuhan 430070
P. R. China
Tel: 86-27-87282680(lab.) 87281306(office), 87286071(home)
Fax: 86-27-87396057
E-mail: lkxblghi@public.wh.hb.cn

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 4:00 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Responsible use of Biotechnology

[Thanks to Dr. Ramsey for this very useful contribution, sharing his views and practical experiences from the livestock sector in South Africa.........Moderator]

My name is Keith Ramsay from the National Department of Agriculture, South Africa. I am currently Registrar of Animal Improvement and Identification - and I have been involved in the development sector since 1973.

This has been a most stimulating session - and, while I intended contributing shortly after David Steane's inputs [20 June and 30 June], I have not had the time to sit down and put all my thoughts to paper.

Biotechnology - and I refer specifically to asisted reproduction technology - needs to be used responsibly, particularly in the developing sector where more important issues such as general animal husbandry are often overlooked by the 'development set'.

Very often, artificial insemination (AI) is seen as a magic wand that can be woven to improve breeds that are perceived to be inferior by those who are not au fait with the production environments in the areas in question. The fact that stressed and underfed animals do not respond well to syncronisation and AI is simply overlooked. Adapted indigenous animals have been crossed with breeds that are often totally unsuited to the environments in question - and we are left with a legacy of animals that require additional inputs to perform - and an eroded indigenous gene pool.

The tragedy of breed improvement.

Used responsibly, however, AI and multiple ovulation and embryo transfer (MOET) technology can be very useful - and many have commented on this during the course of the discussion. It is, however. important to make sure that other basic inputs are in place - good animal husbandry, nutrition and some form of animal identification and recording. All these inputs can be centralised at a strategically placed integrated service center where animal owners can be trained - and where animals can be brought for service/AI.

This service should firstly concentrate on improving management skills using the local breeds. A 50% improvement in general management and nutrition will often result in a more permanent and stable situation as far as animal agriculture is concerned. At the same time, such actions should be linked to exploiting value-added traits of the breeds concerned - and to improving the marketing of breeds and products. We have often found that there is no equal to a local breed when management and nutrition have been improved - and where it has been possible to do within breed selection to identify better performers and producers of products such as fibre.

Where there is a need for a specific product - such as milk - and where management and husbandry skills will enable owners to benefit from other genetics, local breeds can be used to develop composites for specific purposes - but the locally adapted breeds should preferably be used as the dam-line to ensure that traits such as disease and parasite tolerance are transferred from an animal that is in harmony with its environment. The choice of sire line should also take the environment into consideration. Animals adapted to hot climates have a different build to those adapted to high altutude and temperate climates. Crossing a hot climate breed with a temperate climate breed may result in a composite without the capacity to dissipate heat effectively - thereby adding adaptation stress to the load the animal will have to deal with for the rest of its life.

When we bred a dairy composite for the hotter developing areas in South Africa, we took this into consideration and crossed the local Nguni cows with the Jersey that has the same basic respiratory type of frame and physiology. In a more temperate area, we could have used the more 'blocky' Holstein. The result of this cross retained the basic build of the Nguni - but had the added advantage of better milk production. Also of critical importance was the fact that both breeds had the right temperament for the small farmer situation.

Similar work was done to develop an adapted milking goat composite - using the hardy local goat as the basis. The local goats had a natural tolerance of Heartwater (Cowdria ruminatum) and a higher tolerance of internal parasites. Only Cowdria resistant and worm tolerant animals were retained in the program.

Developing such composites also adds value to the pure indigenous breeds in the program as a pure gene pool needs to be maintained. A balanced and responsible approach to this form of development will therefore ensure that local breeds are maintained and that composites are only used where management inputs will enable such animals to perform more effectively. Where these inputs do not exist, it is better to stay with pure indigenous breeds.

The erosion of Landrace breeds has created another vitally important niche for biotechnology - basic preservartion of rare and endangered breeds. It was therefore most encouraging to see references to this during the discussions. Again, this should be used in a responsible way. Wherever possible, conservation should start with on-farm initiatives where owners are encouraged to farm with the breeds because of their value-added traits. Where these breeds no longer exist - or exist in small numbers, AI and MOET can be used effectively to preserve and to distribute evaluated and improved genetics.

It is here that other technology such as DNA fingerprinting can also be extremely useful as this can be used for identification and verification purposes (Verification of purity) DNA technology can also be used where projects make use of multi-sire mating systems - to identify individual sires - a very useful tool in within herd/flock evaluation and improvement.

One must always bear in mind that biotechnology is not a miracle solution. It is of no use whatsoever where basic animal husbandry skills need to be improved. Where it is possible to use conventional breeding technology, one must think carefully before introducing AI and MOET.

In Southern Africa, we have also had an abundance of consultants who have only had a fleeting contact with the real situation. Such consultants often advocate the use of exotic genes and advanced technology to solve all the animal agriculture problems of the areas concerned. I still find it ironical that those who have experienced the local conditions and who are au fait with the potential of both the people and their animals tend to recommend the use of indigenous breeds as the best alternative.

This has beeen a most useful two months - and the organisers should be commended for the way in which it has been run

Kind regards
Keith Ramsay
KeithR@nda.agric.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 10:28 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Technology and development

My name is Ned Donkin, and I teach at the Faculty of Veterinary Science of the University of Pretoria in South Africa. I have been involved in research in crossbreeding milk goats with Indigenous goats, intended for development projects.

Professor E.F. Donkin
Department of Veterinary Production and Ethology
Faculty of Veterinary Science
University of Pretoria
Private Bag X04
Onderstepoort 0110
South Africa

I endorse the communication from Keith Ramsay [17.08]. Years of experience in development projects accrued by myself and others have led to the following conclusions:

1. ENTHUSIASM MUST BE DIRECTED APPROPRIATELY
Scientists are (naturally) very enthusiastic about their latest technological advances. They are keen to find ways of applying this new technology, if possible to the benefit of people they perceive need to be helped. Such altruistic feelings are to be welcomed, and it is good that they should seek justification for the scientific research that has been carried out. But this enthusiasm must be directed appropriately.

2. INVOLVE THE PEOPLE YOU ARE TRYING TO HELP
Development is all about people. Livestock development is one of the ways in which we can help people to develop themselves or their ways of doing things. The people we are seeking to help should be part of the equation. In other words, most scientists should look carefully at themselves and their own motives before they attempt to help others.

3. NO QUICK-FIX SOLUTIONS IN DEVELOPMENT
The temptation is to look upon new technology as being able to provide a "quick-fix" solution. This seldom works. The problems are usually more complex than would appear after a superficial appraisal. The people themselves have to be involved in any changes that occur. You cannot simply " tack-on " new and sophisticated technology into an existing situation.

4. THE PEOPLE HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE RESULTS
Very often the real problems are well understood by the people, and the solution may not even be in technology, but in attitudes, political structures and similar sociological difficulties. Whatever interventions take place, the people will have to live with the results....perhaps for generations. On-farm research has to be done to assess the short-term and long-term effects.

5. NEW TECHNOLOGY MIGHT ALSO BE HARMFUL
An intervention like the introduction of new genetic material might be inappropriate or even harmful.
(a) The existing adapted genetic material might be diluted or lost. Biodiversity is a strength, and needed for adaptability to changes in environment and disease incidence.
(b) Diseases might inadvertently be introduced. For example, introduction of milk goat breeding stock into both Zimbabwe and Mozambique in recent years has been associated with the introduction of Caprine Arthritis Encephalitis Virus (CAEV), a disease rife in many countries of the world, but apparently not prevalent in Southern Africa. These imported goats were destroyed.
(c) No genetic improvement should be introduced without making provision for other improvements in aspects such as nutrition, disease control, or simply in the organization and control of breeding ( selection of sires and castration of undesirable animals; prevention of inbreeding).

6. SHOULD WE BE USING THE MONEY MORE EFFECTIVELY?
Often these new technologies are very expensive, requiring sophisticated back-up services, facilities and technical staff. We should ask ourselves if the resource allocation could be used more effectively. Organizations such as Heifer Project International and Farm Africa have long track records of experience in applying livestock development successfully and in a sustainable way to help developing communities. Would it not be a better investment of resources to support such organizations, using the technology we already have?

Many of these aspects were topics for debate at the recently held Regional Workshop on Small Ruminant Development at the Bunda School of Agriculture of the University of Malawi. This Workshop set up a network for the Southern African Development Community (SADC-SRNET). Some of the participants in this forum may wish to contact the convenors to get copies of the Proceedings:
Please contact Dr James Banda, anscconf@sdnp.org.mw

[The last day for posting messages in this conference is Friday 25 August. To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 10:40 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Conservation Biology

I have read with interest the discussion on the importance of conservation of our genetic resources. The importance of ancestral breeds to advancements in plant or animal breeding was highlighted by research with tomatoes where it was shown that several major genes contributing to "solids", a very important trait in tomatoes, were lost in the domestication process. Loss of alleles is an inevitable result of working with finite populations and it is likely that all domesticated breeds have lost major genes for important productivity traits. Hopefully those lost alleles can still be found in the ancestral breeds, they are the true gold mines. This really highlights what needs to be preserved and why.

All budgets are limited so priorities must be set to determine the most critical resources to preserve. For example, is it necessary to preserve every strain and breed that has ever been developed for a species, such as the Landrace breed that was mentioned? It would seem to me that while the Landrace may very well have important alleles that are not present in other breeds, it is most likely that the breed from which the Landrace was developed will also have those alleles. As with tomatoes, can conservation efforts in swine be reduced to simply maintaining the ancestral wild populations? Note that these wild populations will have poor performance, but that should not be used as a factor in determining which ancestral breeds to maintain.

Because it is relatively easy to determine which breeds are the ancestral breeds, characterization may not be as important a step as suggested. Although there may be several ancestral breeds for a given domesticated stock, except for academic interest, is it important to know which ones contributed to which domesticated breed? Will that influence in any way the decision on which ancestral breeds to keep? Shouldn't we keep all ancestral breeds at all costs? If the answer is yes, then the question is where does biotechnology come into play in the decision making process? The answer seems to be the next step. Biotechnology is vitally important in identifying alleles lost in domesticated breeds but present in the ancestral breeds, and more importantly introgressing those alleles back into improved domesticated breeds without the linkage drag associated with linked undesirable alleles.

--
Bill Muir, Professor of Genetics, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1151

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 8:12 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: genetic conservation // scientists in developing countries

[Thanks to David Steane for his views on some of the contributions posted in the last couple of weeks. NB !!! Today is the last day for posting messages to this conference !!! ..........Moderator]

It is good to see the excellent contributions over the last two weeks and thanks for the extensions to the conference. I would like to agree with several contributors and then raise some problems.

Thanks to Oliver Hanotte [11 August], Adama Traore [16 August] and others, we can see the real potential for use of biotechnology in genetic conservation - but this is mainly to do with developing strategies to maintain diversity rather than the actual conservation. The costs are really in the proper sampling rather than in the tests and this is crucial because if the samples are not a true sample of the 'breed' the results are relatively worthless. Kui Li from Wuhan [17 August] makes a good point about common standards for analysis but, as far as I understand, even this is not sufficient since, even using the same samples, probes and even equipment, labs come up with different answers. The answer is in 'experience', I am told, which means that, while assisting national labs to do the work, a common base lab should be providing common probes and monitoring a proportion of the same samples. The places capable of this role are limited and, unfortunately at this time, the USA has still not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and therefore is not bound by it (which effectively rules out USA labs at present !!).

I agree with most of the comments of Keith Ramsey [17 August] and Ned Donkin [21 August] - perhaps I could go further and say that many scientists in developing countries appear more interested in obtaining the technology (perhaps understandably considering how they are judged !) rather than looking at the possible adaptions needed to serve local needs. Some of these may well be infrastructural but this makes it no less a priority, even for the scientist, IF their work is to be of value. Clearly there needs to be much more dialogue between the various interested parties - planners, scientists, extensionists and, above all, farmers. The problems are less to do with technology transfer as such as with technology relevance, the limiting factors at farm level and genuine cooperation of all parties by prioritisation of specific goals.

Can I thank FAO and the Coordinator, in particular, for this opportunity to enter into such discussions - I hope today will not be last we hear from this conference and look forward to learning how the contributions are used in the further development of FAO's programme.

David Steane, Thailand
desteane@chmai2.loxinfo.co.th

Return to Logs of Conference 3 or go to the main Forum pages.